6 ms·

roughly, very roughly - 90%+ of the people on the 1 TB plan will likely use < 20 Gigabytes (at least over the next couple years), and probably 99% will use less

roughly, very roughly - 90%+ of the people on the 1 TB plan will likely use < 20 Gigabytes (at least over the next couple years), and probably 99% will use less than 100 gigabytes, whereas close to 100% of the people on the doublr plan will be using at least 1 Terabyte.

scholia 13y ago
"probably 99% will use less than 100 gigabytes" I suspect you meant MEGAbytes ;-)
- scholia 13y ago
  Ah, so not many people know how much space the average user consumes.... http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles/00-00-01-29-43-metablogapi/3058.13_2D00_chart_5F00_1EACA5C3.png http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/communit...
salimmadjd 13y ago
best explanation of their pricing structure yet. What's stopping people from creating multiple accounts and use flickr as a cloud backup system for free?
- Osmium 13y ago
  Agreed that this is why Yahoo is pricing it this way -- but I imagine it won't stop the pricing feeling "wrong" to many people. "Why should I pay $500 a year for just a little bit more than I what I was getting for free?" I would imagine, at that price point, it would drive people to use multiple accounts despite the irritation -- and that ultimately, because of that irritation, they might leave the service. Not a good situation for anyone.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - ricardobeat 13y ago
    $42/month is pretty cheap for 2TB storage. $499/year gets you just 500GB in Dropbox, for example. And you'd find it quite hard to leave a service after you've uploaded 1TB of data to it..
    - jlarocco 13y ago
      About leaving the service... A while back I was getting nervous about what Yahoo was going to do with Flickr, so I signed up for a $60/ year SmugMug account. On the technical side of things, transferring the data out of Flickr wasn't a problem at all. If I remember correctly, importing ~9000 (~42 Gb) of photos from Flickr took less than an hour, and preserved almost all of the meta-data I had in Flickr (sets, collections, tags, etc.). It was so fast I almost didn't believe it. Of course 1 Tb would take a while even at that speed. The bigger problem is getting people to use the new site. My Mom, for example, still goes to my Flickr page.
  - luke_s 13y ago
    I would imagine the people that need more than 1TB would be professional photographers who use flickr as a portfolio / advertising. If you are such a heaver user that you need more than 1TB of space, you are unlikely to want to split your account into two and your would probably be unlikely to balk at spending $500 per year on what would be for you a business service.
  - joshmlewis 13y ago
    No one has pointed out to you that it's $50 a year, not month.
    - ghshephard 13y ago
      $50/year is for the ad-free. They are talking about the two terabyte plan. The (understandable from the perspective of the consumer) cognitive dissonance is, 999 Megabytes is free, but 1001 Megabytes is $500/year. How can two things, so close to each other, be priced so differently? It's a very, very small number of people (though they certainly exist) that have photo libraries of > 1 Terabyte. And, and an almost insignificant number of people who have 1 Terabyte of curated pictures. (I.E. Eliminating Dupes, Poor Composition, Focus/exposure issues, etc...) Flickr as backup doesn't make sense - backblaze, at $50/year, makes a lot more sense. Perhaps this is Flickr's way of encouraging people to start using them as a curated upload site, and not as a backup of their entire photo library.
- ghshephard 13y ago
  Nothing will stop them - but, (and I'm just guessing here) - the type of people who host more than one terabyte of photos on flickr probably don't want to screw around with multiple accounts - tracking your detailed stats, alone, gets to be a hassle with multiple accounts. Obviously some people will - but I'm guessing those will be few enough not to matter. The bulk of the people who want to host 2 Terabytes of Photos will be fine paying $500/year, those who aren't can create multiple accounts. (Those who just want Local+Cloud backups are probably better served by just buying a 2 TB Hard Drive for $90, and backing up with backblaze for $50/year
  - angusgr 13y ago
    I agree anyone seriously wanting to host that many photos will not want to split accounts, but FWIW statistics (current Pro feature) don't seem to be offered at all any more.
  - kalleboo 13y ago
    > tracking your detailed stats, alone, gets to be a hassle with multiple accounts Stats are gone anyway with the new account types.
datums 13y ago
Completely agree. This is similar to shared host that offer unlimited space. For those using a lot of share/cpu, they'll get a friendly reminder to upgrade, then a notice that they can't continue supporting them as a client with their current plan. The Flickr Pro account 24.95/yr for "unlimited storage" was an easy purchase. When you login with your Pro account you are suggested to downgrade to the new 1TB (ad) account. For 49.99/yr I have to ask myself, do I really need this ? what are my other options.
- rallison 13y ago
  As a current Pro user, $25 per year to continue unlimited storage, no ads (for me and for all viewing my photos) and photo statistics is still an easy sell. However, if I were signing up for an account today, I would most likely not purchase a paid account - my main reason for paying for an account was to get past the "only your last 200 photos are visible" limitation. That said, if I actually used my flickr account for business purposes, I would not hesitate to pay $50 per year to remove ads from my photos. I suspect many professionals would agree.
  - Pyrodogg 13y ago
    Unless you're invited to sell stock through Getty, flickr isn't meant for business purposes. See http://www.flickr.com/help/website/?search=sell+photos#3225708 http://www.flickr.com/help/website/?search=sell+photos#32257...

scholia 13y ago

"probably 99% will use less than 100 gigabytes" I suspect you meant MEGAbytes ;-)

scholia 13y ago
Ah, so not many people know how much space the average user consumes.... http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles/00-00-01-29-43-metablogapi/3058.13_2D00_chart_5F00_1EACA5C3.png http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/communit...

salimmadjd 13y ago

best explanation of their pricing structure yet. What's stopping people from creating multiple accounts and use flickr as a cloud backup system for free?

Osmium 13y ago
Agreed that this is why Yahoo is pricing it this way -- but I imagine it won't stop the pricing feeling "wrong" to many people. "Why should I pay $500 a year for just a little bit more than I what I was getting for free?" I would imagine, at that price point, it would drive people to use multiple accounts despite the irritation -- and that ultimately, because of that irritation, they might leave the service. Not a good situation for anyone.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- ricardobeat 13y ago
  $42/month is pretty cheap for 2TB storage. $499/year gets you just 500GB in Dropbox, for example. And you'd find it quite hard to leave a service after you've uploaded 1TB of data to it..
  - jlarocco 13y ago
    About leaving the service... A while back I was getting nervous about what Yahoo was going to do with Flickr, so I signed up for a $60/ year SmugMug account. On the technical side of things, transferring the data out of Flickr wasn't a problem at all. If I remember correctly, importing ~9000 (~42 Gb) of photos from Flickr took less than an hour, and preserved almost all of the meta-data I had in Flickr (sets, collections, tags, etc.). It was so fast I almost didn't believe it. Of course 1 Tb would take a while even at that speed. The bigger problem is getting people to use the new site. My Mom, for example, still goes to my Flickr page.
- luke_s 13y ago
  I would imagine the people that need more than 1TB would be professional photographers who use flickr as a portfolio / advertising. If you are such a heaver user that you need more than 1TB of space, you are unlikely to want to split your account into two and your would probably be unlikely to balk at spending $500 per year on what would be for you a business service.
- joshmlewis 13y ago
  No one has pointed out to you that it's $50 a year, not month.
  - ghshephard 13y ago
    $50/year is for the ad-free. They are talking about the two terabyte plan. The (understandable from the perspective of the consumer) cognitive dissonance is, 999 Megabytes is free, but 1001 Megabytes is $500/year. How can two things, so close to each other, be priced so differently? It's a very, very small number of people (though they certainly exist) that have photo libraries of > 1 Terabyte. And, and an almost insignificant number of people who have 1 Terabyte of curated pictures. (I.E. Eliminating Dupes, Poor Composition, Focus/exposure issues, etc...) Flickr as backup doesn't make sense - backblaze, at $50/year, makes a lot more sense. Perhaps this is Flickr's way of encouraging people to start using them as a curated upload site, and not as a backup of their entire photo library.
ghshephard 13y ago
Nothing will stop them - but, (and I'm just guessing here) - the type of people who host more than one terabyte of photos on flickr probably don't want to screw around with multiple accounts - tracking your detailed stats, alone, gets to be a hassle with multiple accounts. Obviously some people will - but I'm guessing those will be few enough not to matter. The bulk of the people who want to host 2 Terabytes of Photos will be fine paying $500/year, those who aren't can create multiple accounts. (Those who just want Local+Cloud backups are probably better served by just buying a 2 TB Hard Drive for $90, and backing up with backblaze for $50/year
- angusgr 13y ago
  I agree anyone seriously wanting to host that many photos will not want to split accounts, but FWIW statistics (current Pro feature) don't seem to be offered at all any more.
- kalleboo 13y ago
  > tracking your detailed stats, alone, gets to be a hassle with multiple accounts Stats are gone anyway with the new account types.

datums 13y ago

Completely agree. This is similar to shared host that offer unlimited space. For those using a lot of share/cpu, they'll get a friendly reminder to upgrade, then a notice that they can't continue supporting them as a client with their current plan. The Flickr Pro account 24.95/yr for "unlimited storage" was an easy purchase. When you login with your Pro account you are suggested to downgrade to the new 1TB (ad) account. For 49.99/yr I have to ask myself, do I really need this ? what are my other options.

rallison 13y ago
As a current Pro user, $25 per year to continue unlimited storage, no ads (for me and for all viewing my photos) and photo statistics is still an easy sell. However, if I were signing up for an account today, I would most likely not purchase a paid account - my main reason for paying for an account was to get past the "only your last 200 photos are visible" limitation. That said, if I actually used my flickr account for business purposes, I would not hesitate to pay $50 per year to remove ads from my photos. I suspect many professionals would agree.
- Pyrodogg 13y ago
  Unless you're invited to sell stock through Getty, flickr isn't meant for business purposes. See http://www.flickr.com/help/website/?search=sell+photos#3225708 http://www.flickr.com/help/website/?search=sell+photos#32257...